Russell,<br><br>I am attaching the captured log of cpu lockup with the full trace of information.<br><br>Thanks and Regards,<br>HarishKumar.V<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:linux@arm.linux.org.uk">linux@arm.linux.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 03:50:24PM +0530, Harishkumar V wrote:<br>
> Will capture the further messages and mail u. Why an IRQ got struck, is<br>
> their a way to handle this....<br>
<br>
</div>Normally, the kernel will disable the interrupt so the system can<br>
continue to (mostly) function.<br>
<br>
However, people like to return IRQ_HANDLED from interrupt handlers,<br>
even when they've found nothing to do. This prevents the kernel from<br>
rescuing you from the stuck-IRQ problem. Interrupt handlers are<br>
supposed to return IRQ_HANDLED if they did something to handle the IRQ,<br>
or IRQ_NONE if they found nothing to do.<br>
<br>
I can't say much more than that - I've no idea what hardware you're<br>
running the kernel on, and therefore I can't guess what IRQ92 might be.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Thanks and Regards,<br>Harish Kumar. V<br>